Re: [patch 05/11] [PATCH 05/11] x86: Moved microcode.c to microcode_intel.c.

[Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>]

* Peter Oruba <peter.oruba@amd.com> wrote:

> Giacomo A. Catenazzi schrieb:
> > Dmitry Adamushko wrote:
> >> 2008/9/19 Peter Oruba <peter.oruba@amd.com>:
> >>> Some additonal words regarding the current user space issues:
> >>>
> >>> IMHO the most convenient way to update microcode is through the
> >>> firmware loading
> >>> interface instead of microcode_ctl. This reduces user-space
> >>> responsibilities to
> >>> loading the correct module at boot time and to place the microcode
> >>> patch file at
> >>> the right location via package installation. The problems mentioned
> >>> in this
> >>> thread would then probably disappear as well. What do you guys think?
> >>
> >> It'd still require changes for all the setups that currently rely on
> >> the 'microcode_ctl' interface. Moreover, Arjan's setup failed not due
> >> to the 'microcode_ctl' per se but due to the altered kernel module
> >> name. After all, we can't break the established interface this way.
> >>
> >> We can either reserve 'microcode' as a legacy name for intel cpus (==
> >> microcode_intel), or maybe we can use request_module() from
> >> microcode.ko to load a proper arch-specific module (I guess, it's not
> >> ok for !KMOD-enabled kernels).
> > 
> > I agree. A wrapper "microcode.ko" module would be nice, in order
> > to allow independent kernel and user space upgrades.
> > 
> > The module name is important also on udev method: only a module
> > load triggers the microcode request in udev, thus also the
> > new method should have stable kernel module name.
> > 
> > ciao
> >     cate
> > 
> 
> That sounds like a single-module solution would be the best way to go. 
> All dependencies would then be handled inside the module.

yes - as long as the internal abstraction is clean (and it is rather 
clean with Dmitry's changes applied too), that should be fine and 
maintainable.

	Ingo